Comments on: Playful Design http://dbl.lishost.org/blog/2007/08/26/playful-design/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:51:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Laurie http://dbl.lishost.org/blog/2007/08/26/playful-design/comment-page-1/#comment-6697 Laurie Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:41:12 +0000 http://dbl.lishost.org/blog/2007/08/26/playful-design/#comment-6697 I recently heard a talk by G. Sayeed Choudhury, Associate Dean for Library Digital Programs and Hodson Director of the Digital Research and Curation Center at the Sheridan Libraries of Johns Hopkins University, titled "What Video Games Might Teach Us About Library OPACs" at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois. It was fascinating, not only because of the cool screenshots of old video games, but because the topic as he related it to libraries was fresh, innovative and thought-provoking. He went through the history of video games outlining a progression of technological innovations: graphics, use of color, the scrolling screen, photorealism, complex story lines, multitasking elements. A few things I wrote down from his talk: “Hard fun” is defined as that point between being too easy and too hard. With ‘good’ video games you have this element and you are also challenged over time and are pushed to another level; you adjust your behavior over time, and you have some degree of control over your environment (you have the ability to save your state). Children who play video games can process tremendous amounts of visual information. They have a different expectation for how they interact with information. For today’s ILS, the most problematic feature is that we don’t have a compelling narrative (unless it’s a personal narrative of having to get the research done!). These points and Gee's principles are food for thought for academic academic librarians trying to address library instruction. You can look at these points on a macro level as well, I think. For instance, building progressive modules for library/research instruction into the curriculum of, say, a psychology course of study speaks to Gee's fourth point in your post. (Skills taught in a 200 level course form the foundation of the skills to be learned in a 300 level course.) This macro view isn't always apparent to the student, however, and I think we lose students along the way; they aren't aware of the meta-narrative (the payoff at the end) that drives the 'game' of research, or don't take it to heart or something. Or we librarians don't always do a good job of keeping the narrative alive or in focus. Thanks for the post and for making me think some more about this topic. I recently heard a talk by G. Sayeed Choudhury, Associate Dean for Library Digital Programs and Hodson Director of the Digital Research and Curation Center at the Sheridan Libraries of Johns Hopkins University, titled “What Video Games Might Teach Us About Library OPACs” at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois. It was fascinating, not only because of the cool screenshots of old video games, but because the topic as he related it to libraries was fresh, innovative and thought-provoking. He went through the history of video games outlining a progression of technological innovations: graphics, use of color, the scrolling screen, photorealism, complex story lines, multitasking elements. A few things I wrote down from his talk:

“Hard fun” is defined as that point between being too easy and too hard. With ‘good’ video games you have this element and you are also challenged over time and are pushed to another level; you adjust your behavior over time, and you have some degree of control over your environment (you have the ability to save your state).

Children who play video games can process tremendous amounts of visual information. They have a different expectation for how they interact with information.

For today’s ILS, the most problematic feature is that we don’t have a compelling narrative (unless it’s a personal narrative of having to get the research done!).

These points and Gee’s principles are food for thought for academic academic librarians trying to address library instruction. You can look at these points on a macro level as well, I think. For instance, building progressive modules for library/research instruction into the curriculum of, say, a psychology course of study speaks to Gee’s fourth point in your post. (Skills taught in a 200 level course form the foundation of the skills to be learned in a 300 level course.) This macro view isn’t always apparent to the student, however, and I think we lose students along the way; they aren’t aware of the meta-narrative (the payoff at the end) that drives the ‘game’ of research, or don’t take it to heart or something. Or we librarians don’t always do a good job of keeping the narrative alive or in focus.

Thanks for the post and for making me think some more about this topic.

]]> By: Steve Ehrmann http://dbl.lishost.org/blog/2007/08/26/playful-design/comment-page-1/#comment-621 Steve Ehrmann Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:22:06 +0000 http://dbl.lishost.org/blog/2007/08/26/playful-design/#comment-621 Fascinating! I'd never thought about games in relation to libraries. One cautionary note: take a look at the use of games and simulations in higher education generally over the last 40 years. Find ones that succeeded and spread over the long haul, and imitate them. There aren't many. Let me focus on games embodied in software. A major problem has been that, just as the game is beginning to become a bit more widely used, changes in operating systems, or networking standards, or expectations about user interfaces require that the game/simulation be rebuilt from the ground up. These new versions often cost as much, or more, than the original. But the incentives to invest are less, and the game usually dies at that point. There are exceptions and it's important to learn from them. Fascinating! I’d never thought about games in relation to libraries. One cautionary note: take a look at the use of games and simulations in higher education generally over the last 40 years. Find ones that succeeded and spread over the long haul, and imitate them. There aren’t many. Let me focus on games embodied in software. A major problem has been that, just as the game is beginning to become a bit more widely used, changes in operating systems, or networking standards, or expectations about user interfaces require that the game/simulation be rebuilt from the ground up. These new versions often cost as much, or more, than the original. But the incentives to invest are less, and the game usually dies at that point. There are exceptions and it’s important to learn from them.

]]>